News and views of Constance Cumbey concerning "Radical Middle", New Age Movement, Communitarianism, "planetary humanism," "global governance," European Union, Javier Solana, Jeremy Rifkin, "New Age Politics," law in the USA, combined with life in general -- sometimes humorous, sometimes not!

Monday, May 26, 2014

Apologize for my lack of recent posting, but I've been trying to catch and archive many things. I just ran across this You Tube video: Encounters in the New Age / The Omega Rebellion. I thought it might make interesting and profitable viewing for my readers. I'm going to see if I can obtain a review copy of his book.

Also, forgive me for family bragging, but my niece, Abby Lemert, has been named a Presidential Scholar, one of two named in the State of Indiana. Abby works very hard and we are all so very proud of her. You can watch by going to this link!

Happy Memorial Day to all with prayers for those we remember this day!

Congratulations to your niece on her wonderful achievement. You and your family should be very proud Constance. I love young people who make the very most of opportunities afforded them including their education. Touching note about the Spanish teacher too.

Some caution on the good sincere pastor. I am very familiar with Seventh Day Adventist theology and Ellen G. White. I have deep reservations about her work and some aspects of their theology. One of the most troubling to me is their teaching that Michael the Archangel is Jesus which to me directly contradicts Scripture. Michael the Archangel was clearly a being of LIMITED power whereas Jesus said ALL POWER was given to him. THE GREAT CONTROVERSY also portrays the Albigenses as authentic Christians rather than the Gnostics they were.

ALSO, the Pastor's testimony is an excellent illustration of how somebody gets drawn into the occult. He accurately quoted Deuteronomy but gave the wrong chapter and verse. He said DEUTERONOMY CHAPTER 11 when the passage he references is instead found in Chapter 18 of Deuteronomy beginning with verse 9.

If pope Francis is interested in a two state solution with "internationally recognized borders". Can we not see that Francis in NOT interested in God's definition of Israel's borders??????? If so, then he stands in opposition to our Savior!!! He also calls Abbas an man of peace!!!!! This is nothing more than a precursor to the pope baptizing the anti Christ, and the catholic institution receiving the AC as another man of peace!!! The AC is not going to present himself with horns, and a tail!!! He is after all a serpent, and king of deception. In order to be received by the masses the AC will need acceptance by religious body's like RC. The catholic institution is always interfacing with principalities and powers. Nothing will change when the AC is revealed!!!!

Did I understand correctly that it's President Assadof Syria, in all his glory, who is actually trying to keep Christianity legal, as opposed to the so-called rebels, who are basically Muz Bru'hood ? ( The ones who gassed a bunch of civilians and then blamed it on Assad ).And did I also not just read that today Barack Obamasigned a pledge to help the rebel$$ ?What the...What just happened ?

That is Obama the frontman (they-tptb-are the hand, he is the glove) working for the global agenda to tip the balance of power in the middle east (and all the world) to favor global rule-as final pieces being set up to move this thing into operation. The timing of the pope in Israel is also useful in helping to create the 'need' to fix that part of the world 'once and for all'. This 'ride' is going to get very very wild in the not too distant future. Going according to the Scripture.

This Catholic article also warns of the danger of "centering prayer" while distinguishing it from "contemplative prayer."

It seems to me that the video pastor uses the term contemplative prayer when he means to say centering prayer. However, even the Catholic article references that at certain retreats and religious classes the leaders are really encouraging the people to do centering prayer under the name of contemplative prayer.

Since the incarnation of Christ is itself mystical - that is having a spiritual meaning that is difficult to see or understand - we probably should not categorically dismiss mystical phenomena as things to be avoided.

Likewise, although the Bible does not recommend taking one's vitamins when ill, we probably should still do these things that are true even if not explicitly stated in the Bible.

anon 3:14, "mystical" is a term with many radically different meanings and you are slopping them together.

centering and contemplative prayer are both problematic.

What is interesting, is that this is NOT what The Desert Fathers did. I found an article which buried in it, was the info that lectio divina was originally reading The Bible in order to put it into practice, and contemplation was going about the day thinking about what you'd read in The Bible, and maybe working it into your prayers.

Both a Protestant source advised in a book I read years ago and the Orthodox norm is to use parts of the Psalms in your prayers.

when extreme rationalistic dryness i.e. scholasticism developed in medieval RC the RC monks went to the opposite extreme, and warped the lectio divina and contemplation into what is being marketed now.

The proper original practices which Bible believing Protestants do, without thinking about it as something to give a special name to, should perhaps be given some name to distinguish it from what is now taught wrongly under those names.

Isaiah (9:6) said that a child would be born who was God, and used the word "God" in the sense that his audience - Jews - understood. So somebody after Isaiah's day will be God incarnate. Supposing (as Jehovah's Witnesses accept) that this prophecy refers to Jesus of Nazareth, He therefore cannot be the Archangel Michael incarnate, for Michael is not God.

I always let the JWs in when they knock on my door, and this is the verse that they have no adequate answer to.

God promised a portion of land to Abraham and his descendants forever (Gen 15:18-19, 17:19-21) and specified that the promise went down the line of Isaac and Jacob rather than Ishmael (17:19-21 again, 26:3-4, 28:13-14). The Covenant with Moses was rendered obsolete at the Crucifixion but the covenant with Abraham remains, and all of the references in the Old Testament to "everlasting covenant" refer to that one and mean what they meant at the time they were spoken (or God would be cheating, which is unthinkable). Anybody who simplistically says that the New Covenant outdates the Old Testament needs to look more closely at the OT and take it covenant by covenant. (Nobody questions whether the covenant with Noah guaranteeing no repeat Flood is still in force, do they?)

The eternal nature of that covenant is repeated by Mary in the Magnificat (Luke 1:55) and by Paul (Romans 11:28-29, a statement in which "Jew" is not redefined because Paul is speaking about those who reject Jesus).

Which land? God first tells Abraham that it is land between the Nile (Abraham would not understand anything else by the "river of Egypt") and Euphrates. All of that land area or some of it? God immediately specifies that it is land inhabited at Abraham's time by certain tribes - and not necessarily all of the land of all of those tribes, for Hittite land ran north of the Euphrates. The exact borders are given, when the Israelites need to know them, by referring to lines between geological points and towns in Numbers 34:1-12. This land corresponds to modern-era Mandatory Palestine plus a little land to the east of the Jordan, plus some land to the north, but minus Eilat. (Gaza is included.)

It is under the Abrahamic rather than the Mosaic covenant that the Jews are back there today, so they have no divine right to kill inhabitants and take their land. They do however have divine right to jurisdiction, ie political control, throughout that area, including the setting and enforcement of fair laws. Consequently I regret any statement by anybody, Christian or Muslim, Catholic or protestant, that advocates a "two-State solution" or refers to the "State of Palestine" (as Pope Francis has done).

Dear 11.13am, the choice in most Middle Eastern countries today is between secular dictatorship by a nominally Muslim strongman, or Islamic fundamentalism. Christians living there obviously prefer the former, because they are not prone to insurrection and are therefore left alone, whereas Islamists subject them to religious persecution.

It is an unpleasant choice but it is the only choice. If the USA sides with the rebels in Syria, it is allying with al-Qaeda among others!

Go to now, he rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. He have heaped treasure together for the last days.

I too am very familiar with Seventh Day Adventist theology and have known many of the people in their church.Their predecessors got it wrong about 1844 and the SDA's now state that Jesus has been carrying out the Investigative Judgement of everyone since then. They also claim that those believers who attend church on Sunday have the Mark of the Beast.Furthermore they say that the "Sunday Law" is coming via the Roman Catholic Church forcing all to worship on Sunday. In response to that I say, "What about believers who don't go to church at all but worship God in private and on every day?" I also question, "What is the situation with Sunday worshippers that have died before any such law is passed? Have they received the Mark of the Beast before this law has been passed?" And, "How will they, the RC Church monitor such a law?"

anon 5:52, this an EXCELLENT solution to the arguments about this, some presuppose replacement theology which is not entirely biblically correct,but it does bypass that kind of argument against Israel being there.

"It is under the Abrahamic rather than the Mosaic covenant that the Jews are back there today, so they have no divine right to kill inhabitants and take their land. They do however have divine right to jurisdiction, ie political control, throughout that area, including the setting and enforcement of fair laws. Consequently I regret any statement by anybody, Christian or Muslim, Catholic or protestant, that advocates a "two-State solution" or refers to the "State of Palestine" (as Pope Francis has done)."

Now the Pentagon is developing a new, innovative brain chip to treat PTSD in soldiers and veterans that could bring sweeping new changes to the way depression and anxiety is treated for millions of Americans.

Susanna, what are you going to do if the pope comes up with areally serious unambiguous unredefinable heresy? Decide it is true if he says so?

...to which I replied at 7:31 P.M.

This very question demonstrates your lack of understanding concerning the dogma of papal infallibility.

In matters of faith and morals,if the Pope is in error, he is not the Pope. The function of the Pope is not to teach whatever he wants. The function of the Pope is to preserve the original revelation of Christ to the Apostles ( Sacred Tradition ) and hand it on intact to his successors.

But now let me ask you a question. What would you do if the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions were to reunite?

05/29/2014 13:27

ORTHODOX-VATICAN Bartholomew: With Francis, we invite all Christians to celebrate the first synod of Nicaea in 2025

Susanna, if the pope teaches error he is not the pope, well, you got the makings of another traditionalist schism there. they been pushing for Mary as co redemptrix for some time now might happen.

As for Orthodox and RC, the only way this is going to happen, is if RC renounces papal supremacy and a few heresies including the filioque.

Which was not in the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

If some Orthodox jurisdiction (and it would have to be jurisdiction by jurisdiction, there is no overarching head over the Church but Christ Himself) or else another Ecumenical Council aka pan Orthodox council go for it, were to join RC without RC renouncing its errors and heresies, then the rest of Orthodoxy would excommunicate that jurisdiction and probably accept any breakaway element from them that opposed it as the canonical Church in that geographic location.

If a pan Orthodox Council agreed to join RC instead of accept repentant RC back minus all its errors and heresies, then the breakaway phenomenon would start up everywhere.

There have been times when truth was held and fought for by a few among Orthodox, the arians had control of most churches at one point, and then there was St. Maximos the Confessor, only he and his few followers were Orthodox when monotheletism was all the rage.

anon 12:18 that might be an argument for the antichrist coming out of Germany, but also the Pergamon thing might get relocated to Turkey.

Christine,Thank you for your authoritative pronouncementregarding...well, everything...but particularly "thatPergamum thing" as you say, which refers to some temple ruins which may or may not have had anything to do with the long since vanished city and it's temple which is mentioned in Revelations, which the Nazi's figured they had found, dissembled, and reassembled in Germany, which Anonymous refers to, yes, thank you for the definitive brush-off statement regarding said temple, though it has NOTHING to do with the fact that God himself calls Pergamum the "seat of Satan" .He doesn't say that about Rome or New York, or London, or Moscow but about a city in Turkey. Turkey the country that gave us the term Genocide, which is what the Young Ottoman Turks perpetrated on Armenian Christians around 1915, (but still claim that they didn't.) They brutally tortured them, Just like the Moslems of today,who really seem to relish a good Christian torture/ murder, or better yet a good mass Christian torture/murder, as they do these things daily, these very days.Turkey, which is both Gog and Magog of Ezekiel,(not Russia).Turkey which supplies Syrian terrorist murdererswith poisons and arms and bombs. Turkey which is thoroughly Moslem but only slightly Arabic.Turkey which straddles Europe and Asia.Turkey which hates Israel. Turkey is where the Antichrist is.

anon 2:56 that was not a brush off statement that was the extent of my knowledge except, that the usual reason given by Bible expositors, that the city had that name, was that was where that temple and a huge statue of zeus was.

there might of course be more to it than that, the statue and temple might have been there because of paranormal events relating to satan being located there.

As I said, all you would need would be for Turkey to demand its artifacts back (though it was probably sent with permission since the Nazis cultivated good relations with Arabs and Turks), and it would be back in place, regardless of the cause for the reputation of the city in The Bible.

If the antichrist did arise in Turkey, then he might demand the artifacts back.

I don't consider the Turkish antichrist scenario incredible, it is certainly a refreshing change from the euro american centric bias of the usual prophecy experts.

Perhaps the antichrist is a german born turk who lives very near the Pergamon temple and goes there often to pray. Perhaps his mom is a devout catholic who has a shrine in her home and prays to statues of the virgin Mary and various other saints?

The congregation at Pergamos is recorded in Revelation as living in the city “where the throne of Satan is” and “where Satan lives” (Rev 2:13). Atop the hill overlooking Pergamos was a temple-sized altar to Zeus, in the shape of a giant armchair. I think there is truth in the claim that Satan has a base on earth when he is down here rather than in the heavenly realms (see Job chs. 1&2; this idea is in H. Leupold’s Exposition of Daniel; also, Satan will be expelled permanently from heaven to earth at some point according to Rev 12:7-9). At John’s time in history, this base was the altar at Pergamos. It was built in 180BC by Eumenes II to commemorate a military victory. Pergamos is where emperor-worship, which took a terrible toll of Yeshua's early faithful, spread from. Antiochus IV (‘Epiphanes’), the Old Testament precursor to the Antichrist, against whom the Jews fought the bloody Maccabean wars for religious freedom, had visited Pergamos before those wars, and had made an alliance with its king. (Pergamos had earlier sided with Rome against Antiochus’ dynasty, the Seleucids.) I believe Satan has since shifted base a few times (today the Kaaba?), but was associated afresh with this altar a century ago; for in the late 19th and early 20th century it was dug up and transported to a museum in Berlin, after which Germany started two world wars and perpetrated the Holocaust on the Jews. I would very much like to know if Nazi rituals took place at it - can anybody help? Hitler’s architect Albert Speer based a massive podium, from which Hitler spoke at Nazi rallies, on it. Its frieze reliefs were transported after the war to the Hermitage museum in Leningrad, and were returned in 1956.

Re:Susanna, if the pope teaches error he is not the pope, well, you got the makings of another traditionalist schism there. they been pushing for Mary as co redemptrix for some time now might happen.

Again you demonstrate your own lack of understanding of the Petrine charism. And rest assured that no definition of Mary as "Co-Redemptrix" will be forthcoming any time soon.

Re: As for Orthodox and RC, the only way this is going to happen, is if RC renounces papal supremacy and a few heresies including the filioque.

Actually, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions have come to a better mutual understanding about the filioque which respectfully acknowledges the legitimate concerns of both positions.

Mutual excommunications were lifted in 1964 and it was highly significant that Patriarch Bartholomew came for the inaugural Mass of Pope Francis on March 19 when from the beginning Francis described himself as “The Bishop of Rome”..

It would seem from this that the Greek Orthodox communion which places great importance in Apostolic succession is taking less of a hard line stance regarding the Petrine charism.

The Proposed 2016 Pan-Orthodox Council, and An Orthodox Theologian's View of the Petrine Primacy

http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/panortco.htm

If there is a reunion between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions, the most likely scenario - and the one that makes most sense - may be one in which the Church in the West will be allowed to retain the filioque in the Creed while the Church in the East will be allowed to continue reciting the earlier Creed without the filioque.

Reportedly, the Greek Orthodox in America are in a high snit over the recent meeting between Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew II in Jerusalem.

This is unfortunate given the fact that another major issue motivating Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew II to forge closer ties is the persecution of both Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians in Muslim countries.

Moreover, if one takes the trouble to read reports about the Moscow Patriarchate and its hegemonic ambitions vis a vis its "Moscow is Third Rome" myth, one will find that there are more tensions between the Orthodox than there are between the Orthodox and Catholics.

anon 6:01 interesting scenario. Bear in mind however that the antichrist will exalt himself above that is called god, true or false gods, and demand worship of himself. It won't be a merging of religions though perhaps it would tolerate some existing if they put him top in the pantheon, but an elimination most likely of anything rival to him.

Susanna, I have been following Orthodox issues since probably c. AD 2006. I know about this stuff.

yes, the filioque can be interpreted in an Orthodox way without a double origin, and RC apologists for it online have denied it "ever" meant double origin but that is false.

RC trends that sedevacantists and traditionalist have decried as accomodation to Protestants, look to me more like preparation to merge back into Orthodoxy, because the changes only APPEAR Protestant, they are the sort of stuff protestantism and Orthodoxy has in common. For instance, no one head of the church on earth, collegiality something being moved towards by JP II.

The softening of the meaning of the filioque, even reciting the Creed without it which I heard from a Latin Rite done on EWTN, looks like the same thing. Protestants blindly kept the filioque, so this is no accomodation to them.

The scenario you present, would mean simply intercommunion and mutual accommodation, but there are problems besides this, such as papal infallibility (only an ecumenical council can be said to have that) and the Immaculate Conception of Mary which would have to be dumped, you cannot have a church teaching this stuff that you allow your people to commune in and have communicants from, or it will eventually infect your own church.

In the event of anything other than return of RC to Orthodoxy, more breakaway traditionalist Orthodox movements would erupt in all jurisdictions, and some would never accept it at all.

Moscow's claims are interesting, and time will tell if there is any truth to it.

YEs we all need to cooperate better against muslims without arguing doctrine or requiring joining.

The filioque problem is simply, that as worded it is double origin, only as interpreted single origin. And the history of the dogmatic definitions and the creation (or standardization) of The Creed itself is to eliminate ambiguity not add to it.

The history of the filioque includes serious opposition by some popes.

IF they were infallible then the later ones weren't or vice versa. This is definitely an ex cathedra issue, faith. Formal pronouncement forbidding the filioque use in The Mass was issued by Pope Leo III.

reading the article at stormloader.com, there is no dispute between Moscow and Constantinople regarding the Orthodox world,

it is regarding interpretation of canon 28 of I think Chalcedon, which gave Constantinople authority over all the barbarian lands not already having a patriarchate. This was before the conversion of the Kievan Rus AD 988.

So then the problem became, did Moscow have authority to grant autocephaly or not, did that require Constantinople's okay or not, etc.

okay, this is an article by James Likoudis who has almost zero credibility. Someone pointed out he couldn't even properly pronounce a Greek Orthodox liturgical phrase.

The comments in the yellow box are hardly inconsistent with a mere primacy of honor, because note intervention would be AT THE REQUEST of others and without this had to stay out of their business.

Tertullian is called the father of the Latin church probably because he started a lot stuff rolling, if not explicitly then what led up to it.

A pattern: trouble of one sort or another tends to come out of north Africa (Egypt and/or Carthage).

No Ecumenical Council, regardless of what might have been said by a bishop or other rank in discussion that was in the record of discussions, ever issued a canon, that gave Rome supremacy, or that even mentioned Peter as relevant to anything about rank.

Instead, according to the canon, it was "the fathers" who gave Rome special honor because it was the chief city of the empire, and for the same reason, I think this was Constantinople I, Constantinople should be elevated over Alexandria to second position.

note: mirroring of political scene, no mention of Peter, and it was not stated that this was by mandate of Jesus Christ in Scripture, but that "the fathers" had "granted" this.

Rome supported Alexandria's objection but caved after a while.

Now, when Peter preached on Pentecost and 3,000 or 5,000 I forget which were converted, AT THAT MOMENT JESUS' WORDS ABOUT BUILDING HIS CHURCH ON PETER WERE FULFILLED.

A one time event.

The church is built on the Apostles as foundation stones and Jesus Christas the chief cornerstone.

Filioque? John 14:26 is about the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit, not the eternal procession - ie it says that an era is about to begin in which if you repent, believe and be water-baptised then henceforth you can expect to receive the Holy Spirit. This is not about the intrinsic relations between the three persons of the Trinity. Scripture is silent about that, and Christians should not divide over what scripture is silent about.

...always delivered the Christian people from their greatest calamities and from the snares and assaults of all their enemies, ever rescuing them from ruin... The foundation of all Our confidence is found in [*****]. For God has committed to [*****] the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through [*****] are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through [*****].

The credibility of James Likoudis who happens to be a convert from Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism hardly depends on your approval......any more than your credibility depends on the approval of your former fellow Evangelical Protestants regarding your own conversion from Protestantism to Orthodoxy.

With regard to both the Petrine charism and the filioque, Likoudis pretty much nails it in the following article for anyone interested.

Moreover, the Patriarch Photius, himself, clearly acknowledged the Roman See's primacy of jurisdiction. In Photius' Greek version of the letter of Pope John VIII to the Emperor read in the Acts of the Council of 879-80, the Pope's words were recorded with no objection.

"One can ask from what master you have learned to act in that way? First of all, certainly from the coryphaeus of the Apostles, Peter, whom the Lord had constituted head of all churches when he said [to him]: "Feed my sheep." (John 21:17). Not only [from Him] but also from the holy synods and constitutions. And also from the holy and orthodox decrees and constitutions of the fathers, as it is testified by your divine and pious letters.20"

In view, therefore, of their continued rejection of the "Filioque," Professor Nissiotes and other modern Orthodox theologians are understandably consistent in criticizing Catholic theology for its "subordination of the work of the Spirit to that of Christ in the realm of ecclesiology,"9 and in progressively proceeding to abandon the traditional teaching of the East concerning the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils ex sese. The protestantizing theology of the nineteenth century Slavophile theologians has wrought ecclesiological havoc among Orthodox thinkers, culminating in their growing rejection of any functional infallibility in the Church. For some of these theologians the traditional dogmatic teaching concerning the "collegiality of bishops" has been replaced by the innovation of the "collegiality of the whole Christian people"! Father Purcell rightly views this tragic departure from the ancient tradition of Councils as the inevitable consequence of an "ecclesiological apollinarianism wherein any supreme, divinely established authority is replaced altogether by the invisible authority of the Spirit dwelling within the whole Church."10

interesting waste of time to cite St. Photios the Great, since he wrote a whole book, MYSTAGOGY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT to detail the heretical potential and essential error of the filioque, addressed of course to Rome and its environs.

you guys always confuse primacy with supremacy.

MY opinion is not the issue. here debunking Likoudis and links to articles that take him apart at the seams.

"How old was he when he became Roman Catholic? Perhaps he was five years old when he “converted.” That would explain his very shallow understanding of the Eastern Orthodox faith. On the other hand, perhaps he was already twenty-five years old when he converted, old enough to envision a potential career as a Roman Catholic apologist in the offing. Of course, the whole thing could have been made up; perhaps he never was Orthodox, which would explain why he would expect Orthodox Christians to believe his nonsensical babbling.Of course, we are not the first Orthodox Christians to accuse Likoudis of being disingenuous. Joseph Suaiden simply takes Likoudis apart in a 2002 article. Suaiden’s second refutation of Likoudis is equally impressive."http://1389blog.com/2013/07/29/james-likoudis-the-phony-convert-and-the-rudest-roman-catholics-on-the-internet/

Now the "the invisible authority of the Spirit dwelling within the whole Church" might be fine and dandy except for one thing. if said authority is being played out in history as it played out after the Reformation we will find hundreds - if not thousands -of "Holy Spirit - authorized" interpretations of Christian dogmas - many of which contradict each other.

Now in such circumstances why should anyone believe that one "Holy Spirit authorized" version of Christian dogma is more capable of giving us the correct account of Christian dogma than any of the others?

I might add, the pope's letter was at a time when Rome was beginning to try to stake a claim it didn't make before (St. Clement's intervention in Corinth is irrelevant since that was Roman turf anyway). And of course it is going to be recorded. And the results of the council did not reflect anything but the collegiate decision of all the bishops present not the will of the pope. The fact that the pope had occasion to criticize shows that the rest of the Church was not towing his line.

oh come on Susanna, you repeatedly post things arguing for papal claims of supremacy over the whole church. And a lot of Orthodox have a problem with Patriarch Bartholomew. And he is only Patriarch over the Constantinople Patriarchate not everyone else.

There are ongoing low level disputes with Constantinople over whether they or local patriarchates/metropolitanates have jurisdiction when they are in lands that at the time of I think it was Chalcedon Canon 28 were not under an established jurisdiction of the time, but were "barbarians," which includes the present USA and North and South America.

A squabble is on between Jerusalem and Antioch over a location in some Arab country, hinging on how terms and geography of ancient times apply to the present. As a result, communion is suspended between these two. Constantinople will not play any part, unless the unlikely event of being invited takes place.

Christ alone is the Head of our Church, there is no one earthly head, only geographic governmental segments, and all would be subordinate to the decision of an Ecumenical Council if one was held.

The sobornost notion that Khomiakov promoted in slavic Orthodoxy is neither normative nor absent outside of slavic Orthodoxy or even entirely in it.

In most ancient times, however, a bishop was elected by the people at large, and approved by the patriarch of the location and consecrated by three bishops (unless an emergency in which case one was good enough), but in the OCA for instance the laity didn't vote on selection of a Metropolitan (USA, Orthodox Church in America, as distinct from some small weird group Orthodox Church OF America probably defunct by now).

The response of bishops and laity to the Florence Council was rejection, and riots, imprisonment of one of the signers, and most of them repented of having signed. This reaction invalidated the Council's results.

Modern uniates or Byzantine Rite Catholics are apparently not required to hold to RC added doctrines, merely acknowledge the pope of Rome as the governing head and remember him in the dyptichs and he has therefore I guess the right to intervene in any dispute about episcopal succession I don't know if his approval is needed for a consecration or not. In this regard, they are not as far off (or as far romanized) as the EO would have been, had the Church at large accepted The Council of Florence.

If by potshots you mean references to heresies you hold while RC doesn't accuse us of heresy, that is just plain fact.

RC doesn't accuse us of heresy, because it can't, because we hold no doctrines it doesn't hold, except for collegiality of all bishops and all patriarchs as equals and bishop of Rome as first among equals, not doctrinally central enough to be called "heresy."

But RC holds doctrines invented after The Great Schism of AD 1054

when RC went into schism by excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople, and this had little bearing on the rest of EO until it realized that the issues involved, and developments later in RC, were relevant to all the jurisdictions.

Susanna, why don't you ask your priest why RC calls us schismatics when by RC history viewed from RC perspective, we are in fact EXCOMMUNICATES? or excommunicatees, whatever?

These are FACTS. RC explains it in terms of development of doctrine something abhorrent in itself to EO which focusses on keeping the faith once and for all delivered to The Apostles, "developments" in our case are pretty obviously rooted in Scripture requiring no twisting or weird allegorizing while RC developments are not.

you don't need the pope to tell you Jesus is God in the flesh, died for our sins, rose from the dead, will come back to judge the living and the dead, what is good morality, etc.,

The core doctrine you may fear loss of is in The Creed,

which you think is in danger if you leave the pope,

but in fact what does the Creed say? to what authority does it appeal? oral tradition? the word of the pope speaking ex cathedra?

NO.

It says of Jesus that "he rose again on the third day ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES."

That faith held in the undivided Church and defendable from ALL the Scriptures put together not just some out of context like the protestants do in making their own Tradition,

oh come on Susanna, you repeatedly post things arguing for papal claims of supremacy over the whole church.

Oh come on Christine.....anyone who wants to go back and read what I have written will be able to see for himself that other than when I am directly asked for information by Constance, it has been primarily in the wake of repeated gratuitous Catholic-baiting and pope-bashing that I have repeatedly defended what Catholics believe to be the Petrine charism - what Catholics believe to be the special protection of the Holy Spirit given to Peter which preserves him from error on those rare occasions when he formally defines a dogma "ex cathedra."

Your saying that Christ's delegation of authority to Peter was a "one time event" is a misinterpretation of Sacred Scripture and contradicts tradition and history.

In fact, here is the list of Popes which includes a brief biography of most on the list for anyone interested.

THE LIST OF POPEShttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Again, I have not thrown the pot shots at Orthodoxy that you have thrown at Roman Catholicism. Thanks be to the Holy Spirit, certainty of faith precludes my having to go around trashing somebody else's beliefs in order to paper over any doubts.

Regarding the "uniates" your statement is incorrect. They must accept all Roman Catholic dogmas:

"In this union they accept the Roman Catholic faith, keep the seven sacraments, and recognize the pope of Rome as supreme earthly head of the church. They retain, however, all other characteristics—e.g., liturgy, spirituality, sacred art, and especially organization—proper to themselves."

Re:"If by potshots you mean references to heresies you hold while RC doesn't accuse us of heresy, that is just plain fact."

Both Roman Catholic and Orthodox have unfortunately accused each other of heresy and even excommunicated each other.

I didn't think that the purpose of this blog hosted by Constance -who welcomes Christians of all denominations and even non-Christians ( i.e. followers of Judaism ) was to repeat those offensive mutual accusations of "heresy" here.

Besides, in case you didn't know, people who are born into non-Catholic Christian communions are not referred to by the Catholic church as "formal heretics."

The person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.

yes that distinction between the initial heretics or heresiarchs and their immediate followers on the one hand and those born into the results on the other exists in EO also, or at least it has been voiced by EO writers incl. priests.

RE:Susanna, why don't you ask your priest why RC calls us schismatics when by RC history viewed from RC perspective, we are in fact EXCOMMUNICATES? or excommunicatees, whatever?

Since the relations among all Christians are cordial and charitable here where I live, and no one is referred to as "schismatic" or "excommunicated," it has never occurred to me to ask my pastor or bishop such a question.

My ? is: why all this back and forth dithering and splintered and useless info? Jesus is LORD!!! He has trumped all of this nonsense and He needs no one to tell us this. His Holy Spirit (please read the Bible in John's Gospel and see what is the role of the Spirit and the authority He has that should be the final word on this subject). He does all the teaching without all the dither! You dear folks are torturing this subject to death and getting nowhere. You're just sounding like a couple of talking heads.

Susanna, wrong teaching as defined by the undivided church from which RC pulled away. we are older, we got priority. we also have Scripture on our side against these ideas, without having to twist and allegorize it to death like RC writers have to do to get support for some things.

As for it not occurring to you to ask, it seems to me that the reason to ask would be to find out just what official positions actually are, and why, and not just base everything on how cordial relations are or are not.

truth has never been determined by the niceness of behavior or personality, though at times a pattern may emerge, the nicest people can hold the wrong ideas.

the real issue is truth, not human relationships, not organizations.

I didn't choose Orthodoxy without a lot of research.

While RC is not as far from EO as many EO think, it is far enough that for unity to exist, for full intercommunion safely to occur (which would mean your people could get into our seminaries and change doctrine, something that almost happened anyway in the 1800s because Jesuits staffed the only available education for priests in EO),

RC would have to renounce its additions to the faith. papal supremacy and being in communion with the pope as the only way to be saved (softened a bit of late), Immaculate Conception of Mary, papal infallibility speaking ex cathedra on faith and/or morals, the filioque, purgatory as separate place from hell, mechanistic transfer of merits from saints to believers needing some merits, I forget the rest, quite a list in fact, some of which you may not even know.

But if you read up on the history and statements made as recently as the 20th century you will see what the official position has been.

Personally, I cannot imagine how anyone can depend on social situations and things like that to determine truth or to get you to ask questions or not ask questions, it is just so alien to my way of thinking that I never realized you didn't know about this stuff.

Re:But if you read up on the history and statements made as recently as the 20th century you will see what the official position has been.

Personally, I cannot imagine how anyone can depend on social situations and things like that to determine truth or to get you to ask questions or not ask questions, it is just so alien to my way of thinking that I never realized you didn't know about this stuff.

But I have read up on this stuff and while the RC and Orthodox have much in common, the weight of the evidence is not in favor of the Orthodox position.

I am just catching up on the posts on James Likoudis. I have met him in the past. I believe I may have once interviewed him on my Detroit WMUZ radio program "Lawtalk" in the late 1990s or so. I've always considered him a straight forward religious writer. Friends gave me a subscription to THE WANDERER and I believe I first encountered him there and perhaps at various HLI events where I was an invited speaker and he may have been covering for THE WANDERER.

I have always enjoyed his writing and agreed with much of what he had to say. I have not talked with him in several years.

Susanna said...Re: "you don't need the pope to tell you Jesus is God in the flesh,"

Really?

Then why do you need Orthodoxy to tell you that Jesus is God in the flesh?

WHAT MAKES YOU THINK I NEED A CHURCH TO TELL ME JESUS IS GOD IN THE FLESH?

I already figured that out. I want to be with the church that has least biblical problems, and is the core trunk from which all churches came.

Now as for weight of evidence supporting Rome, that is only possible if you rely strictly on Roman sources and interpretations. BUT EVEN AMONG THESE THERE ARE LITTLE SLIP UPS which support the Orthodox position.

There are also outside objective historical materials, that show what's what.

Finally, The CREED DOES NOT LOOK TO POPE OR ORAL TRADITION OR FATHERS for its authority.

It says that Jesus "rose again on the rhird day ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES."

Right there it upholds Scripture as final authority. There are things in Scripture that need a lot of research and study and are open to misinterpretation, but some things are blatant.

No one can deny that Scripture says Jesus Christ came back to life. And there is plenty of Jesus is God in the flesh statements in Scripture plus things that add up to that.

If all churches stopped teaching this, it would not affect me, except I wouldn't attend any of them. If Orthodoxy went atheist or unitarian arian, I would stop attending their services until they repented. I would keep my religious trip going with Jesus on my own, and perhaps He would reveal to me others who stayed true to Him that I didn't know about.

Now, when I look at Scripture, there are some problems with RC, especially the filioque. With Orthodoxy, the only problems are not official doctrine and organization style, but some notions that crop up due to some Fathers having been influenced by Origen who was anathematized after he and they were dead, such as, that the coats of skins given to Adam and Eve were our densely physical bodies (the same idea regarding sun moon and stars was anathematized, that they became physical as we see them now when they fell from contemplating God). But THIS IS NOT OFFICIAL DOCTRINE, just a notion floating around among some.

you will probably at this point tell me the Church gave me the Scriptures.

No it didn't. The Apostles who are in a sense part of the Church but the founndation stones of it with Jesus as Chief Cornerstone, wrote eyewitness accounts of what happened, died rather than recant so it wasn't a lie, and were precisely the kind of hard headed practical peasant fisher etc. men who don't have delusions.

In fact, at first they didn't believe it either.

They also vALIDATED what was legitimate OT and apparently okayed inclusion of the deuterocanonicals, not considered so much inspired as valuable.

So, thanks to Orthodoxy I now have the Orthodox Study Bible with the deuterocanonicals.

Constance, I am sure Likoudis was nice to you and was good company.

But please take a look at these articles.

http://apologetika.tripod.com/likoudis.html

http://apologetika.tripod.com/likoudis2.html

"A Roman Cathoic propaganda television station ran an extensive interview with James Likoudis. It was uploaded to a YouTube series in January, 2010. Likoudis claims to be a former Orthodox Christian, but his knowledge of the Orthodox Church seems to be sketchy at best. One YouTube commenter pointed out that Likoudis could not even pronounce a commonly used Greek liturgical word. (Don’t look at me; I am not Greek.)" http://1389blog.com/2013/07/29/james-likoudis-the-phony-convert-and-the-rudest-roman-catholics-on-the-internet/

The Church is described by Paul as "the pillar and ground of the truth," in other words, it houses, contains and transmits the truth.

It doesn't create it.

The councils that dealt with Scripture canon, did not create that canon, they affirmed the tradition already received from the Apostles through men who knew men who knew men who knew The Apostles, and formally rejected the use of false documents circulating later.

St. Irenaeus c. AD 180 appealed to Scripture as authority, and cited the same books and letter we have in the canon today as the only legitimate ones.

Every time an RC sees the word "catholic" or "catholic faith" they read it as ROMAN Catholic, but this term catholic meaning universal, the one truth taught regardless of location or ethnicity or whatever, the one faith, was a term used to refer to the whole undivided church which was being called Orthodox also long before the Roman schism, meaning right faith and right praise, as opposed to the arians who had wrong faith therefore the phrasing of their praises to God was also wrong.

After the schism, the remaining catholic church (Rome having with the filioque departed from the universal faith not really being "catholic" anymore) was called Orthodox and while the formal application of some terms may have started after AD 1054, the organization itself did not begin then.

UNBROKEN APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION HAS CONTINUED in Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople.

That Susanna didn't know this shows the quality of the sources she relied on. Sure there were heretical groups claiming the patriarchates in Antioch and Alexandria, but the original unbroken lineage continued in the Orthodox category also.

Such a system could allow for mandatory "verification" or authentication of any purchase by credit card, bit coin, etc. The system could interact with an iPhone or Android device to monitor all transactions.

Re:UNBROKEN APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION HAS CONTINUED in Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople.

"That Susanna didn't know this shows the quality of the sources she relied on. Sure there were heretical groups claiming the patriarchates in Antioch and Alexandria, but the original unbroken lineage continued in the Orthodox category also.

Where is your list?

As for the "filioque," most Protestants include it in the Nicene Creed.

How Does the Filioque Affect Reformed Protestant Theology?

......So for the historical Reformed position, the Filioque not only develops from the text of Scripture and impacts how one understands who God is, but it also uniquely affects the history and piety of the church.

This is particularly evident in understanding how it was good for the church that Jesus went away physically. In John 16:7, ESV, Jesus said, "Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you." Though the disciples were disturbed that Jesus said he was going away, they didn't know what to make of his words. Jesus can't have been referring to his second coming because in John 14:19 ,using nearly identical language he says that "yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me." So the seeing wasn't going to be that of the world seeing him return whereby they would fall down in fear before him, nor was it going to be the world seeing him which resulted in them hating and killing him. Rather, the seeing was going to be the church having Jesus' real spiritual presence by His Spirit. Jesus rose and ascended bodily, but he sent the Spirit to the church to fulfill his promise that he would come again to them after he had left.

The Spirit reveals Christ. In Reformed theology, this is seen as the chief work of the Spirit. People sometimes divorce the work of the Spirit from that of making Christ known, but the Spirit hasn't spoken of himself as having a separate work besides that of making Christ known. This illuminating work of the Holy Spirit is what makes Christ known as more and more beautiful to the believer. If the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father, then He can provide access to the Father apart from Christ. This goes against the biblical teaching that our access to the Father is through the Son, and by the Spirit. The Spirit reveals Christ to us, and through Christ we have access to the Father. The filioque affects the very core of the Christian life--union and communion with the Triune God....read entire article...

Re: Every time an RC sees the word "catholic" or "catholic faith" they read it as ROMAN Catholic,

Not true. When I was growing up Roman Catholics referred to the Greek Orthodox Church as "Orthodox Catholic."

Moreover, under Canon Law ( Can. 844 §1, §2 and §3 ) while regular open intercommunion is not yet permitted by either church, there is an ecumenical agreement between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church to the effect that in a moral emergency ( i.e. there is no priest to administer the Sacraments ) each may receive the Sacraments from the other.

Re: Every time an RC sees the word "catholic" or "catholic faith" they read it as ROMAN Catholic,

Not true. When I was growing up Roman Catholics referred to the Greek Orthodox Church as "Orthodox Catholic."

That's your experience, once you don't find everywhere and hardly at all online and whenever RC apologists use pre schism writers they like ones that use the term "catholic" as if to make their roman point, when it doesn't.

sheesh, everyone seems to think their own locality is like it is everywhere else. Just look in the phonebook, what sort of churches are listed under "catholic" for the most part with some exceptions?

the filioque can be understood in a way closer to biblically correct than it is. I have seen modern RC argue it does not mean double origin but indeed no one said that in the earlier days and this waffling must be recent.

Jesus said THE HOLY SPIRIT PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER.

St. Augustine in saying The Holy Spirit is the love between The Father and The Son, makes Him out to be a mere force or a relationship, not a Person.

The Holy Spirit proceeds FROM The Father THROUGH the Son into the Church, but while The Son is eternally being begotten of The Father, The Holy Spirit is eternally being spirated from The Father.

The issue of operating separately is a non arguement or you could complain the same thing about The Son.

Reformed theology like any protestant theology has to stagger along under the burden of trying to think it is free of "romanism" while it has kept some and abiding by St. Augustine's formulations incl. predestination which protestantism is an extreme throwback to.

" If the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father, then He can provide access to the Father apart from Christ. This goes against the biblical teaching that our access to the Father is through the Son, and by the Spirit. The Spirit reveals Christ to us, and through Christ we have access to the Father. The filioque affects the very core of the Christian life--union and communion with the Triune God"

Nonsense. first off The Father makes Himself known through the existence of creation itself, but many are blind. Any turning to any part of the Holy Trinity is a turn to all of them, REMEMBER PERICHORESIS, They are all Three infinite so all occupy the same space at the same time (and are outside space and time), and let's say you bump into The Holy Spirit somehow, He's going to hand you over to Jesus, and until you actually recognize Jesus you may not understand what has happened, but essentially you will be on track to being in Jesus.

Jesus also said that The Holy Spirit would be working in the world to cause conviction of sin and other things, so obviously you are going to be influenced by Him to come to The Father, through Jesus and Jesus says that whoever is taught by the Father will come to Him that is Jesus.

There are several serious potential problems with the filioque, which include potential revival of EVERY last damn heresy that ever was. St. Photios the Great details this in MYSTAGOGY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, youn read the whole thing online

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/photios_mystagogy.html

and comments that merely forbidding to go in these directions only mitigates the damage, it doesn't eliminate it.

The biggest simplest problem to describe, is that if The Son and The Father both produce The Holy Spirit (in eternity, not action in time), then BOTH have the function of father (or parent) which removes the distinctive feature of The Father, and if The Holy Spirit does not then produce yet another divine person, then He is downgraded by lacking something The Other Two have, and if The Holy Spirit DOES do this, then you open the door to endless generations of divine persons and here comes pagan pantheons of gods generally held to be descended from other gods.

The big problem is that the issue is origin in eternity. All Persons of The Trinity are CO ETERNAL, but only The Father is UNORIGINATE. The Son and The Holy Spirit originate in The Father, but they have always and are always doing so, so that there was NEVER a time when either The Son or The Holy Spirit was not in existence.

This goes into the realm of mystery which the finite mind cannot reach, but when you speak of action in time you can say, yeah, The Holy Spirit from The Father came from Jesus into the Church, at Pentecost, but that is about coming from in the sense of from point A to point B, action in time, NOT ACTION IN ETERNITY OR ISSUES ABOUT ORIGIN.

Re:"A Roman Cathoic propaganda television station ran an extensive interview with James Likoudis.

That would be EWTN. Constance Cumbey appeared as a guest on one of EWTN's programs called "Mother Angelica Live" in the 1980's to discuss the New Age Movement and her book HIDDEN DANGERS OF THE RAINBOW. I saw the program. It was quite good.

How nice that Obama was able to free an Americanprisoner (who is now Muslim) , by giving up a fewof the Guantanamo muslims.Now we can bring this American hating jihadist home.Thanks President Sowerto !

you can't expect a moslem to be reliable. Any more than you could expect a hard core Christian under some circumstances to be "reliable."

why? total devotion to God means you are not primarily the citizen of any nation. you have an agenda beyond your country or whatever. If the agendas clash, you side with God.

The moslem agenda for their idea of God is "peace" meaning to bring all into peace with allah, not peacefulness like we think of, but submission to their god by any means violent or non violent.

The Christian agenda is more nuanced and involves waiting for the Kingdom to be brought by Jesus Christ, and some Christian nations or groups might in fact be so unchristian as to be a proper object of violent action, indeed, Christian countries have fought each other,

in a head on simple choice situation a Christian would not be "reliable" either.

We cannot afford to let these people gain a strong foothold. Regardless of how nice some may be, there are a lot who are not. In France a girl was gang raped in the anus by Pakistani men, who considered that since they did not break her hymen by going in the vagina it was okay.

When the population of moslems in a country reaches a certain percentage, two things happen.

shariah starts getting enforced

and Christians start getting persecuted.

period. those are the statistics, available online.

Already there are efforts some of them successful to have American law mandate that in the case of moslems Shariah law is to be the law that is applied.

And none other than Susan Rice was on the Sunday talk shows singing Bergdahl's praises in the face of evidence that Bergdahl was a deserter ( he sent a message admitting as much before he voluntarily went AWOL ).

His platoon was near the town of Yahya Kheyl in Paktika Province.

After he deserted, attacks on his platoon reportedly increased....hinting at the possibility that he collaborated with the enemy.

Six soldiers were killed trying to rescue him. Their families ( i.e. the Andrews who are devout Christians )were reportedly lied to.

Mr. and Mrs. Andrews were on Fox and Friends just this morning. Full interview at the following link.

Hey, just look at the mug shots of these murderers nobama is proud of freeing. Nice guys huh??? They are certainly not under Satan's influence or nothing bad like that. The face of peaceful Islam. If everyone in this world were Muslim there would be even more violence than now because Satan is their God!!!!!

Aint no such thing as a Christian country, only Christian individuals. Politics belongs to Satan until Jesus Christ of Nazareth gets back. You name a country and a date it was Christian and I'll give you back a list of institutional injustices and details of systematic corruption going on at that time in that place.

"When the population of moslems in a country reaches a certain percentage, two things happen. shariah starts getting enforced and Christians start getting persecuted."

Only partly true. Post-British India has a considerable Muslim fraction but the Hindus don't put up with nonsense.

"If everyone in this world were Muslim there would be even more violence than now because Satan is their God"

No, Satan has deluded them into thinking that the creator God has the remote and capricious personality spoken of in the quran rather than the faithful personality spoken of in the Bible.

.The ENPI Horizon 2020 Capacity Building/Mediterranean Environment Programme (H2020 CB/MEP) aims to support the implementation of the Horizon 2020 Initiative Road Map and Work Plan through capacity building and awareness raising activities, and to promote integration/mainstreaming of environment issues into other sector policies.

I do not understand why there is not more coverage and comments regarding Pope Francis' involvement with the Middle East lately.

There MAY be major biblical ramifications considering the times we live in and what may lie ahead in the coming days.

I am not interested in Catholic bashing- nor bashing of any particular denomination. I am interested in the TRUTH. I very familiar with this blog and used to frequent daily- but left a few years ago only checking in every few months- one of the reasons being that Constance and many of the "regulars" here are very PRO Catholic- although they usually deny such under the guise of defending against "catholic bashers".

Come on now Constance! And readers! Something is brewing in the Vatican and with Pope Francis. I know everything looks so peachy and he APPEARS to be a wonderful human being....but... Do none of you find this to be worth watching and discussing intelligently considering the times we live in and the possible correlations to biblical prophecy?

Why? Because he is the Catholic Pope?

While I DO NOT believe Pope Francis to be the anti-christ- I do believe something is definitely not right with him.

there are a lot of articles at this site, but the assumption of course is that this sort of problem is recent.

When the Vatican chose to keep pagan art, to put twisted pillars from a pagan temple in its cathedral, it brought into its physical heart the poisonous residuum and psychic influence of the devil. This might rest bound and minimally if at all effective for centuries except when it encountered a compatibly proud heart or otherwise corrupt heart, but it would have to be careful. And it was weakened. Renaissance popes were notoriously corrupt.

These pages, however, even if sometimes a bit sensationalistic, and of course anti Orthodox and anti protestant and pro fatima (which I have reluctantly some time ago concluded is a deception as are almost all marian visions), are a real good starting point.

Malachi Martin is an interesting barrel of worms, but an extremely good source. i think the accusations against him, perhaps worse, are true, but that he got a scare and turned legit RC towards the end.

If this theory is correct, it wouldn't be the first time someone made a career of opposing evil who was involved in such himself, Montagu Summers.

Both are excellent sources of information. But once on a TV program, I watched him explain how one who serves the devil gets a particular kind of exhilaration or some word like that, and expressed curiousity about what such an ancient being as a fallen angel could have to tell, the sort of thoughts that crossed his mind when assisting at an exorcism, I got a silvery impression off him and I felt I should not trust him, and his book Hostage to the devil tells more detail than needed, all that it would take for an impressionable person to be flung into a psychosomatic fake possession or at least haunting that might attract the real thing.

There is a lot of evil hiding in Catholicism and it way predates Vatican II.

But basically, the Orthodox Patriarchate of Rome got too big for its britches and fell to the sin of pride, being caught up too much in the nature of the first city of the empire.

One of them denounced the idea of a Universal Father saying Peter was not over the other Apostles why should one Patriarch be head over the others?

Another forbade the filioque.

Both of them were succeeded by men who adopted the title and the filioque.

starts out with the subject of papal usurpers, then goes to Cardinal Rampolla whose election to papacy was stopped by a veto from Franz Joseph of Austria, an old power almost never used, turns out Rampolla was an Ordo Templi Orientis (closet satanism) member, and future John XXIII was mentored by one of Rampolla's clicque.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qikkoocqgUE part 2 of 12 of the same series. poison murder issues.a pope and 2 cardinals eliminated, knocking the number needed to elect down to 35 votes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giVuud52ijY part 3 of 12

roncalli selected ahead of time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQp00j4H3Kg part 4 of 12

the siri thesis dirt on roncalli seens he was fired from a teaching position for promoting occultist Rudolf Steiner's ideas.

Sedevacabtists hold that Siri's renunciation of the papacy being under duress was not valid, ergo he remained the real pope and J23 was not valid. This of course says nothing about subsequent popes. All the ordinations and consecrations by J23 would be invalid they argue, so the Apostolic Succession has in many cases been broken. However, J23 was a bishop already before he was pope, so I don't think this is correct.

Be that as it may, a sedevacantist issue then is getting valid sacraments, presumably most since J23 are not valid.

(The Orthodox Holy Liturgy, which is the older format, calls on The Holy Spirit to make the Eucharistic transformation AFTER the words of institution, and this epiclesis is depended on more than the priest, though RC influence and the foundations of its theories that were developing before The Great Schism have gotten a bit into Orthodoxy, such as priest as icon of Christ, but the Liturgy itself remains as always, this reliance on The Holy Spirit means that Apostolic Succession and validity of Holy Orders relating to this are not that critical an issue, The Holy Spirit making up for whatever is lacking, one of the reasons I chose Orthodoxy after a considerable amount of research thanks to the malachimartin yahoo egroup, I then took important posts and files and started malachimartinetc egroup and banned the moderator of the first group who had his own agenda, but that is another story. The research preserved on the second egroup is important.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE2MbPsaZYo part 5 of 12 Who was John XXIII more dirt on roncalli.

the rest of the videos are to be found on the right side of the youtube page.

I am not interested in long and twisted (old pagan) catholic history, that is just too obvious for anyone with a least some discernment to see, (let the blind go merrily into the ditch if they must cling that tightly to something as rotten as that is) and does not truly speak to the heart of the matter but only as part, yes, a big player but still just a part, because it is all of apostate 'christianity' (and all false religion is coming on board) that is joining forces with the pope and the global governance crowd for biblical prophecy (talking the great tribulation here) to happen in our time. Sooner than we all might think.This has huge new age implications and this is becoming so acceptable to the general population of the world that is frankly just asleep (and equally too wrapped up in it's own illicit self-absorbtions) while all this deviousness is happening in broad daylight. Global government and false religion are very well on their way with their agenda, the old pagan repackaged as the new age, and it is so widespread that it must take it's course and fulfill what the Bible says. Hang on to your hats, folks. This is all propelling headlong into the extreme.

Don't think for one minute the ecumenical movement with the pope, apostate protestantism, and Islam, along with any other group that wants to ride along isn't setting the stage for the antichrist. It most certainly is! Just the fact that Francis would jaw it up for a "two state solution", that in and of itself, is evidence enough to see the man has no fear of YHVH!!! Or he simply cannot read!

anon 11:37 and 5:36first off, I was answering someone's question about RC who may be RC themselves maybe not.

Regardless of whether RC was always totally false (EO position is it is partly false), it IS a power on the world scene that has to be taken seriously.

The dirt on the recent developments, is that a satanic plot to infiltrate it has been in the works since the 1800s, and has apparently been successful.

that puts it, I would think from your perspective, out of the realm of merely one more false religion into the realm of big power now under satanic influence of a more serious sort than human delusion. (The USA can be analyzed in the same terms, but a more diffuse therefore less drastic in effects type nature, unless and until it can be converted from a democracy with more or less free press, to a totalitarian operation comparable to the RC.)

yes, this kind of merger of religions would fit the antichrist's interests nicely. And given the evidence for satanic infiltration, that is probaby exactly the ball game.

anon 5:36, RC adheres to replacement theology, which leaves no room for physical Israel, everything all promises etc. transfer to the Church, and some things get spiritualized in interpretation if it doesn't quite fit.

This position is questionable at least in terms of what Paul said in Romans. Theoretically EO does the same, but it is not part of formal canons and dogmatic definitions so I can shrug it off. A lot of Arabs negatively impacted in Israel are NOT moslem but Christian of various denominations, mostly Orthodox some Coptic maybe some Latin connected like the Maronites.

Dear or not Please read the Bible and make it your source. Not us and not yourself. Do you not see the times we are in? The Bible is the authority on this subject, not whatever source you may be using.

Pope Francis has managed more in 6 moths toward a false global spiritual unity than any of his predecessors did in their entire pontificates.

In the last 6 months Francis has connected with Kenneth Copeland and his minions via video calling for biblically uneducated Christians to join with Rome.

In May he was the first Pope to ever attend a Charismatic Conference attended by more than 50,000 and the crowds went wild.

Now he has managed to bring Israelis and Palestinians together at the Vatican to pray for peace in the region led by Mahmoud Abass the President of the Palestinian Authority and Shimon Peres President of Israel .

For the first time in history "Christian" Jewish and Muslim prayers were heard at the Vatican.

This Pope is the leading figure in the march toward a false world spirituality.

It would seem that there is a supernatural power behind the moves Pope Francis is making.Charming beguiling and extremely dangerous.A time for discernment as to the true spiritual forces and motives behind these talks at the Vatican...We can learn from Biblical History where people have been deceived by what' seems' a right and good course of action.

"The political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski were primarily responsible for expanding the usage of the term in university social science and professional research, reformulating it as a paradigm for the Soviet Union as well as fascist regimes. Friedrich and Brzezinski argue that a totalitarian system has the following six, mutually supportive, defining characteristics:

Elaborate guiding ideology.Single mass party, typically led by a dictator.System of terror, using such instruments as violence and secret police.Monopoly on weapons.Monopoly on the means of communication.Central direction and control of the economy through state planning ."

So you think that the Roman Catholic Churchis Totalitarian?

Christine, the fruit of your endless irresponsiblecomments is confusion.Take a hike.

I find it very interesting that whenever information is posted here on anything doctrine related that opposes Catholic theology, the Catholics (of which I was a member for almost 30 years) come out in full force to defend.

But when information is posted like some of those started yesterday morning regarding Pope Francis, there is almost nothing.

If you want to talk about praying to saints, the Marian worship (I'm sorry, I meant adulation), Papal supremacy and many other issues, the Catholics come out in full force all day long to defend their traditions of men.

But if you want to talk about issues like the ones related to the postings on Francis yesterday, that have legitimate concerns and deserve attention and discussion...you will experience almost complete silence.

definition of totalitarian is from an online DICTIONARY. The systems in nonconstitutionally limit monarchical medieval and recent governments, and the top down RC (in theory) system, and many governmental systems that involved control are not even mentioned but were routine throughout history.

to limit the term to some recent examples, some more extreme some less than previous ones,

SHOWS THE TOTAL IGNORANCE OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM itself loaded with people who wouldn't mind a return to feudalism if they were the ruling class.

Which is one of the goals of globalists, some of them.

CATHOLICS SILENT ON POPE FRANCIS - I think the reason should be obvious. The antics of the past few popes incl. it looks like this one, are what would result in severe criticism by conservative RC and even moderate RC, if it weren't the pope doing it.

They are silent because they agree, but because of their ecclesiology they are very inhibited in complaining.

Some traditional Catholics DO complain and call out popes on heresy even. The videos I posted links to earlier are exactly from that kind of Catholicism.

CHRISTINE!You called the Roman Catholic Church a totalitarian system!I'll say it again; you are an irresponsible,gossiping slanderer.The way that you shrug off your guiltand change the subject and continue on even as you've been exposed makes me think that you are a true sociopath.But I know that you're simply a misinfo agent and a jammer.Every time someone posts something relevant and timely, you immediately follow it up with a pile of horse apples.SHUT UP!

What is more New Age/old lie,,,than catholicism? It is leading the way to the AC's one world religious system! What could bring more devastation to souls than that? Oh but let's chat up life on Mars, and the postal service buying up ammo, and red moons n big foot n flying sorcerers n genetically modified horse apples!

It is a major disservice to one of the purposes of this blog to not have intelligent discussion on what we are seeing from Pope Francis.

But then, on this blog it usually is not possible to discuss anything like this without being labeled a "catholic hater" and they gang up you all day like you are the villain. I'm quite surprised there has not been an outcry already about the catholic bashing.

Some of us are not interested in bashing anyone or any denomination. Some of us are interested in what is REALLY going on and how it relates to God's Word.

But, nahhhh! Lets continue to talk about Solana the has been and many others discussed on here that are really no longer relevant.

When we see this kind of news, and we see what, to our leaders is good, can we not see that our Lord is returning soon? Unfortunately for us in the west, once tribulation really kicks in here it will take the vast majority of our people by surprise because they are sound asleep!!!! They are on the drug of patriotism, and all the founding fathers hot air crap! Christian nation notions nonsense!As long as there's sports on television, 57 channels and nothin on, porn on the computer, sales at the mall, beer in the fridge, then we are blessed!!! Or not? We are a nation of indulgent hedonist, baby murderers, and our schools are shooting galleries for the products of our social engineering!!! When the 'horse apples' hit the fan in this nation it will be much worse than you can now imagine. The church here will wonder why they have not been raptured away yet? Were is our Lord?! Strong Delusion!

I could go on and on as to why a Rock is going to fall on this nation, but as the sun will surely rise tomorrow, it will. For those who have fallen on the Rock, we will loose all our stuff, and most of us who will remain faithful will be martyred.

Re: Anonymous said...I find it very interesting that whenever information is posted here on anything doctrine related that opposes Catholic theology, the Catholics (of which I was a member for almost 30 years) come out in full force to defend.

But when information is posted like some of those started yesterday morning regarding Pope Francis, there is almost nothing.

Perhaps if you were to focus more closely on the heresies, apostasies and scandals in your own back yard, you wouldn't have so much time on your hands with which to calumniate Pope Francis.

Perhaps also, if you would take the trouble to study past postings on this blog, you would find that it has been very clearly explained why Catholics come out in full force to defend the faith and morals taught by the Pope but do not necessarily feel themselves compelled to comment on other activities of the Pope which do not involve the Petrine charism.

But I will repeat it once more here.........

While we are obliged as Catholics to obey the Pope strictly in matters of faith and morals, we are not obliged to embrace his politics, economic theories or even his private religious opinions in matters which as yet remain undefined....and may even respectfully disagree with him.

The omments being made here about the Pope seem to be part and parcel of a quasi-political Protestant theology fiction which is nowhere to be found explicitly stated in the Bible.

What you are seeing from Pope Francis, however, is his living out of the Great Commandment in the presence of everyone he meets - including people who do not necessarily profess Roman Catholic Christianity.

As we read in Mark 9:38-41:

38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

It seems to me that you are the one being unbiblical in your little games of "spot the antichrist".....according to your own standards too.

You claim to have been a Roman Catholic for almost 30 years.

Once a Jehovah's Witness who was trying to convert my mother likewise told her that he had been a Roman Catholic for many years - to which my mother replied, "Really? Well you couldn't have been a very good one."

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks--Jesus said this. Check it out Matt 12:34.

For the life of me I cannot understand defending the indefensible. Once again, Suzanne you prove yourself more willing to uphold your denominations pope higher than the Lord Jesus Christ. Why do you do this so readily and not even question what the man is promoting? He is a mere man (there I said it) and is never, ever, anything but a fallible human being no matter his office or standing in the public arena, I don't care what your church teaches.

Pope Francis speaks out of the abundance of his heart and he is clearly a globalist (knowingly or ignorantly) because the Gospel is cast aside for the new age socialist agenda in his words and then gets worse-his actions. This is forewarned in Scripture and he is a player in the end times scenario because of the stand he is taking apparently schooled up on roman catholic doctrine but ignorant of the Very Word of God of prophecy. He is helping fulfill it on the enemy's end!!!

Once upon a time that was me too....I once was lost but now I'm found, was blind but now I see....I pray for your eyes also to open in Jesus' Name.

Let's see:Islam is very busy these days murdering, torturing,raping and slandering Christians all over the Middle East and elsewhere.Roman Catholicism is, as always, preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.Islam makes it illegal to leave the very tight confines of it's religion, to the point of public humiliation and execution.Roman Catholicism invites people to come into the faith and stay there or not at their own free will.Islam seeks to literally take over the world and enslave all people under it's tyrannical Sharialaw which is Totalitarian and Fascist, Christine.Islam enslaves women.Catholicism sets women free wherever it goes.Islam is a phony cult which bears almost no resemblance to Judaism or Christianity, whichit originally claimed to be part of, but was lyingall along. RC MAY have some doctrinal issues that can be debated.Islam doesn't have any doctrines that are worth debating. It's all a pack of lies.

But hey, lets all pile on the Roman Catholic faithand wrangle over all it's perceived mistakes, while the satanic Moslems spread hatred, lies and violence as far and as fast as they can.They are so aggressive, and terrifying that no one even dares to challenge them, unlike the easytarget of the peace-loving Roman Catholics.

Does the RC deny the Father and the Son?No.Islam does that.Does the RC church espouse violence, highjacking,thefts, and enslavement in order to advance it's cause?No.Only Islam does that.Does the RC church advocate wife murdering for the reasons of disobedience or just inconvenience?Islam does.The founder of Islam started, as a boy, a small band of violent highway robbers, which grew and morphed into an army of bloodthirsty demon-possessed thugs, who still to this day use cowardlysurprise tactics to kill and steal, just like their father the devil. The founder of Catholicism is Jesus the Christ, who, together with his father sends us the Holy Spirit. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love, joy, peaceand compassion.Look at Ezekiel 35. Look at verse 5;"Because thou hast had a perpetual hatred, and has shed the blood of the children of Israel by the force of the sword in the time of their calamity, in the time that their iniquity had an end."But read all about what God says to Egypt, Edom,Moab, Ammon, Damascus, Babylon, Chaldea, Arabia, and others through Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and many other of the true prophets.Every one of those countries is Islamic right now.

I'm glad God isn't like us. We seem to want to shoot at each other. He is going to destroy his enemies.

You are missing the thrust of the argument here Paul. Yes rcc has it's doctrinal issues-granted-some are really off base with the written word of God the 66 books of the Bible---but---that is not exclusive to them.....and pitted against islam oh yes, you are making a valid point......but......the issue at hand is: this pope and his influence in the world to further the globalist agenda, he is a player whether you like that or not--whether he knows it or not.To go against God' plan and directives (as written don't forget!) concerning israel and that land, that God says He will award all this to those chosen for it, not to be carved up by the supposed and well meaning people who want "world peace", to bring that ecumenical "kumbaya" to make the world a better place-"hey I'd like to buy the world a coke"--garbage--really lends itself the the devil's deception that the world does not need King Jesus (Who is coming although catholic higher ups have publically declared that He is not or at least that His return is a very long way out-wow people read the Bible!!!!!) their take on the world is it just needs to have everybody play nice....this pope is the poster boy for all these deceptions and the globalists are so happy for his trying to hand over the whole of apostate churchianity into their hands. This blog is supposed to be enlightening everyone to these very things but the catholic "protectionism" around here does not let the whole truth because very often squelched. That is what is being discussed here. Yes, we have a free will to like it or lump it.........

I have posted several links with regard to perversions within protestantism. Mostly regarding NAR, Kansas City prophets etc. As have others here. While there has been a great deal of fraud and sexual sins present in protestantism it pales in comparison to the corruption and sexual perversion within catholicism.

It seems this Jehovah's Witness person your mother shared pleasantries with, was probably not that bad of a catholic after all. That person just traded one man made religion for another. They were true to the spirit. It seems possibly your mom was a strong defender of your religion as yourself. Familial and religious tradition are tough shackles to break. But we can do all things through Christ. Nothing is too difficult for Him!

One thing Islam seems to do well is create an environment for the most devout form of christianity, those willing to daily lay down their life for Y'shua. Catholism offers a winding path of beautiful art, statues, vain tradition, idolatry, a sodomite club for men,its own history of violence and torture,its enslavement of souls bound by religious nonsense, no straight forward gosphel message to be had. Paul, if you can not see that the incredibly vast majority of catholics are of another spirit then you need to pray to have the scales removed from your eyes!

I fully agree that Islam is a deeply satanic religion. Nevertheless if a cult like catholism is deceiving souls to their destruction then its just as evil in the long run as Islam. Just not currently torturing and beheading.

equating totalitarianism with the abuses by Islam and arguing RC doesn't do that so isn't totalitarian misses the point.

Any top down system with a single man or a small crew at the top, who are not subject to popular vote, and make extensive claims economically, politically and psychologically, is by definition totalitarian.

THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT BAD.

It would only be bad to the extent that its dictates are bad.

But a totalitarian system is far more useful to a bad group if they can take it over, because it is not fluid enough.

Same reason American state department advisors to the prez preferred we deal with dictators and install them if not there already, because moving their countries in the direction we wanted was easier if you only have to control one man.

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks--Jesus said this. Check it out Matt 12:34.

For the life of me I cannot understand defending the indefensible. Once again, Suzanne you prove yourself more willing to uphold your denominations pope higher than the Lord Jesus Christ. Why do you do this so readily and not even question what the man is promoting? He is a mere man (there I said it) and is never, ever, anything but a fallible human being no matter his office or standing in the public arena, I don't care what your church teaches.

The Pope IS a mere man. I never said he was not. You are the one portraying him as something more than a mere man in order to fit him into your theology fiction game of "spot the antichrist."

What I am willing to uphold is what the mouth of Christ spoke when he said to Peter - and the Apostles in communion with Peter - "He who hears you hears me." Luke 10:16

This means that the authority Peter has is a delegated authority.

I am aware that there are those who are trying to make the Bible say things that it clearly doesn't say by interpreting Christ's commission to Peter to be a "one time deal."

If that is so, then by that standard Christ's words like "whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, that ye do unto me" is also a "one time deal" and applies only to those times.

Here is the Catholic teching. If you disagree, fine. But at least have the decency to know what it is you are disagreeing with.

From your bandying about of Y'shua, I am suspecting that you are a follower of some form of Messianic Judaism - a scheme devised with the help of a certain Protestant faction with a view to tricking the Jews into converting to Christianity in order to hurry along their own so-called "prophetic" end times scenario as interpreted by them.

They think it qualifies them under Israel's Law of Return. (NOT!)

Since there are some who also interpret a passage of St. Paul to mean that it is OK to lie to people in order to convert them to Christianity, (2 Corinthians 12:16), I wouldn't be surprised if this mentality comes into play as well

If this is the case, then to echo your own words, for the life of me I cannot understand YOUR defending the indefensible.

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks--Jesus said this. Check it out Matt 12:34.

For the life of me I cannot understand defending the indefensible. Once again, Suzanne you prove yourself more willing to uphold your denominations pope higher than the Lord Jesus Christ. Why do you do this so readily and not even question what the man is promoting? He is a mere man (there I said it) and is never, ever, anything but a fallible human being no matter his office or standing in the public arena, I don't care what your church teaches.

The Pope IS a mere man. I never said he was not. You are the one portraying him as something more than a mere man in order to fit him into your theology fiction game of "spot the antichrist."

What I am willing to uphold is what the mouth of Christ spoke when he said to Peter - and the Apostles in communion with Peter - "He who hears you hears me." Luke 10:16

This means that the authority Peter has is a delegated authority.

I am aware that there are those who are trying to make the Bible say things that it clearly doesn't say by interpreting Christ's commission to Peter to be a "one time deal."

If that is so, then by that standard Christ's words like "whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, that ye do unto me" is also a "one time deal" and applies only to those times.

Here is the Catholic teching. If you disagree, fine. But at least have the decency to know what it is you are disagreeing with.

From your bandying about of Y'shua, I am suspecting that you are a follower of some form of Messianic Judaism - a scheme devised with the help of a certain Protestant faction with a view to tricking the Jews into converting to Christianity in order to hurry along their own so-called "prophetic" end times scenario as interpreted by them.

They think it qualifies them under Israel's Law of Return. (NOT!)

Since there are some who also interpret a passage of St. Paul to mean that it is OK to lie to people in order to convert them to Christianity, (2 Corinthians 12:16), I wouldn't be surprised if this mentality comes into play as well

If this is the case, then to echo your own words, for the life of me I cannot understand YOUR defending the indefensible.

I have posted several links with regard to perversions within protestantism. Mostly regarding NAR, Kansas City prophets etc. As have others here. While there has been a great deal of fraud and sexual sins present in protestantism it pales in comparison to the corruption and sexual perversion within catholicism.

I will repeat that my faith does not depend upon the personal sanctity of those who are charged with the mission of preaching and teaching it. And since the instances of sexual perversion in your own back yard have obviously not persuaded you to abandon your beliefs, you of all people should understand why the sexual perversions that have occurred among the Catholic clergy have failed to persuade me to abandon mine.

Those who have given scandal will pay dearly for committing "spiritual murder".....you will recall what our Lord had to say about millstones....

Those who deliberately take scandal, however commit "spiritual suicide."

Because by "taking scandal, one uses the wrongdoings of others as an excuse for his own wrongdoing.

Every sincere religious leader is susceptible to being "sifted like wheat" by the devil." Our Lord said so Himself.

The devil doesn't take as much trouble chasing down those who he perceives to be already on his side.

While certain people here are only too quick to excoriate what they wish to believe is the false ecumenism and/or false mysticism being peddled by the Pope, an "ecumenism of blood" is being forged in the Muslim countries where Christians of all denominations are fair game.

Every one of these people who dies for the faith - whether Catholic or non-Catholic Christian - is a saint.....and if, as was once proclaimed by the church Fathers, "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church" then we may rest assured that Christianity will one day rise again where her enemies gleefully thought her to be dead.

Time will prove what this pope and his charming way is accomplishing. This is going nowhere good and in a hurry now. The 'false peace' is doing the diabolical, even as we speak. The wait won't be long to know for certain whose bidding he is doing.

Time will prove what this pope and his charming way is accomplishing. This is going nowhere good and in a hurry now. The 'false peace' is doing the diabolical, even as we speak. The wait won't be long to know for certain whose bidding he is doing.

Maybe then you (Suzanne) will get it??? (praying you do)

All you are doing is promoting your own interpretation of Bible prophecy - one which makes the Bible say what it simply doesn't say.

Given the thousands of similar - often contradictory - interpretations, why should anyone believe that your interpretation of Holy Writ is capable of giving us a more correct account of Christianity - especially the end times - than any of the others?

You are right. Time will tell what this Pope is all about.

In the meantime, am certainly glad that you are hoping for my salvation in Christ as I am hoping for yours. When all is said and done, that is what true ecumenism is all about - as opposed to sending one another to hell over denominational differences.

So I'm guilty of "Bandying about of Y'shua"? So I must be a part of some " Messianic Judaism"???? Those people who are always going about "tricking Jews into converting to Christianity?

You are such a twister of reality Susanna! The fact is I'm NOT a member of any denomination. I went with a friend once in the mid 80s to a Messianic fellowship. ONCE! They were big into cross fellowshipping with catholics. I use Y'shua as I believe is is a correct transliteration. I did not know my using it was " Bandying " I have been in two different fellowships that were pastored by Jewish men. Both used the name Jesus in referring to the Savior. The only Jews in my family are on my mothers side. Her brother married a Jewish woman,,,they are catholics.

Re:anon 5:36, RC adheres to replacement theology, which leaves no room for physical Israel, everything all promises etc. transfer to the Church, and some things get spiritualized in interpretation if it doesn't quite fit.

That is incorrect.

Replacement theology or supersessionism is a theological error that has no foundation in the New Testament or teachings of the Church. Even though this error unfortunately became widespread and was taught by many influential Christians beginning with the Church Fathers, it was never an official doctrine of the Catholic Church. Neither is the opposite error called "dual covenant theology."

Frankly speaking, I don't know if you are saved or not, Suzanne. You know that one, I don't claim to and never spoke to that. And actually, if you pray for me, I say thank you. But......to see what the times are truly telling us, and the deception currently going on to take people's eyes of of the Lord's Sure Return, to be busy being religious or anything else that occupies them rather than look to the Scriptures exclusively--that are indeed spelling the end times are here and Jesus is at the very doors---that is what I am hoping that you will come to understand. This pope is an end times sign-and not a good one(and many accompanying signs are progressing quickly now). Keep and open heart and mind for the Holy Spirit to enlighten you (Eph 1: 17-23 speak exactly my heart toward you) and then you will know what is being told to you. The warning signs are everywhere. If only people would look at the big picture and not what they think is "only my interpretation".

WOW! How your own religious mind is quick to falsely accuse others of what you yourself are doing!

Since you did have at least one encounter with a Messianic Jewish group and were influenced enough to use their term "Y'shua," I hardly think that I am the one twisting reality here.

If it is OK for you to darkly hint that the Pope might be one of the minions of antichrist, then you are hardly justified in getting all bent out of shape over my describing your use of the name "Y'shua" as "bandying" which is defined as "passing from one to another or back and forth; as in "to bandy words."

Actually, I regard it as arrogant bandying in so far as you have freely used the word "Y'shua" without any explanation to other commenters here who may not know what it means.....or who may not know anything about Messianic Judaism.

Moreover, the fact that "Y'shua" has been mostly used by controversial groups like JEWS FOR JESUS and other Messianic Jewish groups is precisely what led me to suspect your own involvement in said groups.....not that I would pass judgement on you if you were a member of such a group...only your gratuitous and ignorant pope-bashing.

Lastly, I was not referring to Jews in my comment about Messianic Judaism. I was referring to "Christians" who are pretending to be Jews. The Jews I know - Orthodox Jews - wouldn't give them the time of day.

Ergo, YOU are the twister of reality as well as other peoples' words, not I.

Re: Frankly speaking, I don't know if you are saved or not, Suzanne. You know that one, I don't claim to and never spoke to that. And actually, if you pray for me, I say thank you.

That is probably the truest thing that you have said so far. I thank you for your prayers as well.

Re: But......to see what the times are truly telling us, and the deception currently going on to take people's eyes of of the Lord's Sure Return,

I don't doubt that there is a lot of deception and evil in these times and the Gospels tell us again and again to stay awake and pay attention to the "signs of the times." But given the words of Christ I quoted in a previous comment, I hardly think that this includes calumniating other Christians.....including the Pope.

Re: to be busy being religious or anything else that occupies them rather than look to the Scriptures exclusively--that are indeed spelling the end times are here and Jesus is at the very doors---that is what I am hoping that you will come to understand.

It is not just because I am a Roman Catholic whose Rule of Faith is Scripture and Sacred Tradition that I don't look at the Scriptures exclusively. It is because the Bible does not teach "sola Scriptura." Yes I know about the usual proof text used to defend Sola Scriptura, but it does not say that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith - especially since the Scriptures referred to are the Old Testament.

Neither does the Bible teach that this Pope - or any other Pope - is a bad sign or a bad Pope. This is not to say that there haven't been any bad Popes. There have. But the Scriptures haven't given us any particulars.....and again, my Christian faith does not depend upon the personal sanctity of any Pope. It depends on Christ who revealed the Christian faith to Peter and the Apostles and charged them with the mission of preaching, teaching, preserving and handing on the faith. This is why Christianity is called a "supernatural religion." Because it was revealed to Peter and the Apostles by Jesus Christ who is truly God and truly Man.

Re:This pope is an end times sign-and not a good one(and many accompanying signs are progressing quickly now). Keep and open heart and mind for the Holy Spirit to enlighten you (Eph 1: 17-23 speak exactly my heart toward you) and then you will know what is being told to you. The warning signs are everywhere. If only people would look at the big picture and not what they think is "only my interpretation".

I do believe that I am enlightened by the Holy Spirit when I read the Sacred Scriptures in and with the Church.

Re: The warning signs are everywhere. If only people would look at the big picture and not what they think is "only my interpretation".

Indeed, I agree that there are plenty of warning signs that some form of judgement is about to descend upon the world. But as you said, time will tell.

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

......every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

A body is nothing without the spirit within it. It takes more than bread right?.......so how are we to live? by God's Word-every word--nothing added-nothing taken away--Rev 22:18-21--from the Living Word. Sola Scriptura.

Whatever we would add or take away makes us a liar. Only God is True. That is enough for me.

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Exactly correct!

No one - including popes - have the right to teach anything contrary to Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

There is also an obligation to interpret Scripture correctly. That the Scriptures do not interpret themselves is part of Catholic teaching......ergo the reason why the Catholic Rule of Faith is Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura. And the Bible would have to teach Sola Scriptura in order for Sola Scriptura to be valid.

Originally, the Word of God was transmitted orally by Christ directly to the Apostles. This is the original Sacred Tradition. The written Word came after the spoken Word.

This is why St. Paul said "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." Romans 10:17

Catholics and some non-Catholic Christians - believe that the Apostolic Fathers, including Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp(who is likely referred to in the letter to the Church at Smyrna found in the Book of Revelations) - who were closest in time to Jesus and the Apostles - were capable precisely for that reason of giving the most accurate interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures which have been preserved and handed on to this very day.

CHURCH FATHERShttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/churchfathers.html

"No one - including popes - have the right to teach anything contrary to Scripture"...

So why do they???

That was Eve's problem in the garden. She did not simply stick with what God said and leave it at that and obey what she was told (Adam too of course) but put their own take on it.

That is what a religious spirit does--sacred traditions and all-adds and takes away.

Every word out of the mouth of of God--that is our Authority. Jesus said so. Nothing more nothing less--don't care who they are. People must deal with it. Could not be any plainer or simpler-right form the mouth of Jesus Christ. Sola Scriptura.

"Catholics and some non-Catholic Christians - believe that the Apostolic Fathers, including Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp(who is likely referred to in the letter to the Church at Smyrna found in the Book of Revelations) - who were closest in time to Jesus and the Apostles - were capable precisely for that reason of giving the most accurate interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures which have been preserved and handed on to this very day."

YES!

BUT THEY DON'T SUPPORT PURGATORY, IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF MARY, THE OVER THE TOP TYPE VENERATION GONE IDOLATROUS MARIOLATRY FROM THE MIDDLE AGES TO NOW, MECHANICAL VIEW OF GRACE AND MERITS ACCUMULATABLE BY AND TRANSFERABLE BY SAINTS, SCHOLASTIC VIEW OF WHEN AND HOW THE BREAD AND WINE BECOME THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, PAPAL INFALLIBILITY, PAPAL SUPREMACY AS DISTINCT FROM PRIMACY OF HONOR, THE FILIOQUE, AND OTHER THNGS.

I agree there are references in The Bible to traditions received orally, but St. Basil the Great says these are VERY FEW, prayer to the east, sign of the cross, triple immersion baptism, prayers by the priest in the Holy Liturgy,

AND AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL EXCOMMUNICATED A POPE, and RC ACCEPTS THIS COUNCIL.

Pope Leo III denied he had the authority to make changes in the Creed absent an Ecumenical Council speaking on the matter.

Meanwhile, on the core of the faith, The Bible preserved originally by the undivided Orthodox Church and later by the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic and later by them and the Protestants, is all we need for salvation, and by it one can judge how a congregation, and oneself, is doing.

But organizations with accountability built in help retard heresy (though can also promote it).

About Me

As an active Michigan lawyer, I practice my profession primarily in Macomb, Oakland and Wayne counties of Michigan, USA (248-253-0333). Sometimes I do work in my old "stomping grounds" of our State Capitol, Lansing, Michigan on administrative, state law related matters, as well. I've enjoyed active and stimulating careers in government, politics, law and as a published and translated author. In the past, I have worked for the Michigan House of Representatives, the Michigan State Senate, and the City of Highland Park, Michigan. I'm the author of the first major critical book about the New Age Movement, THE HIDDEN DANGERS OF THE RAINBOW: The New Age Movement and our Coming Age of Barbarism (1983); A PLANNED DECEPTION: The Staging of a New Age Messiah (1986). Currently, I'm completing a volume about Javier Solana, the Barcelona Process, Israel and the European Union. Email me cumbey@gmail.com.